6.14.2004

i think that flag burners might be on to something

so the supreme court copped out on the pledge of allegiance case.

from what i can tell, the court ruled that since the father doesn't have legal custody of the child, he can't even petition the court that the "under god" in the pledge of allegiance has an adverse effect on his kid. i suppose that the custody laws are the way that they are for a reason, but dammit, i hope some responsible atheist parents do take this matter to court. again, not to get all political on your ass, but the way i see it, the constitution is fairly clear in regards to the separation of church and state. to quote montecito resident dennis miller (who by the way, i hear is a real big a-hole), no matter what the context, church and state just don't go together, just like burt and loni. how anyone can argue that invoking a specific diety in an oath of allegiance to a nation state is not in violation of this is beyond me. i fully acknowledge that most of the people in the nation are christian, but most of the people in the nation are also white and i think that ends up leading to a lot of bad laws. earlier this year, i saw gayarti spivak give a talk on campus and she said that secularism is an impoverished abstraction that needs much more attention. i think that in this case, she might be right on target.

besides, for the longest time, i always thought that it was "one nation, under guard".

No comments: